Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
1 
Report this post
You know that you can use local files, right?
Ok and for those that bought the game without an already established source of music hosted locally then what are we supposed to do? Invest significant time and money in order to build a local library of music or are you suggesting piracy? Really ain't no justificaiton. Its a ♥♥♥♥ thing to do to consumers especially since a lot of people wouldn't have bought it if it didn't have streaming.
First of all, having a nice library of local music is always a good idea, audioshield or no audioshield.
1) it provides a lot more money for the artists you seem to like than the 0.01c/1000 hits streaming gives
2) you can listen to it even if you don't have any connection
and
3) it is always available, even if youtube or anybody takes the clip down. (iTunes and co not withstanding, as they can remotely erase your files)
Secundo, you might think it's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ thing to do to consumers, and you might be right ... therefore I would point you to Youtube and Google to file your complaint as, as far as we know, it wasn't a decision by the developer.
now chill, and DO built an offline library of the songs you like to hear .. or are you too cheap to pay 99c for tracks you like?
You are an insensitive idiot. I've begged my friends for months to come over and try Audiosurf, mainly because of the YouTube videos of Split Enz. They are kiwii's and finally came over this weekend. ♥♥♥♥ this ♥♥♥♥.
While I agree that having an established library is a good idea, I would like to point out that I paid for a game in a certain state, and that state has been altered making the game less fun/useful. If your contention is that this is the fault of Youtube, and not the dev, well I can understand your point (if this is true), however it is the dev's responsibility to ensure the game is fun/useful whether this is through Youtube or an alternate service. If the devs can't do this then the game will suffer, and it won't be Youtube's fault.
To provide an analogy, the music industry had to evolve their business model or collapse due to new technology (streaming/ripping/pirates). Audioshield will need to find a replacement for Youtube if it wants to stay as popular as it is/was.
From what the dev said he IS actively looking for a replacement, so we'll see if he can find something or not, and how fast he can implement it.
In the meantime, if you don't have a local library aof songs there are a few alternatives to get good tracks from, the main one being probably jamendo.com. You won't find any brand names on it, but a very decent portion of the available tracks are very good and you can downoad the files for free *legally*!
Ultimately it is the developers fault in any but the last situation I will describe below. Either he added the feature knowing that he was outside of YouTube/Google's terms of services or he errantly added the feature without proper research. There is a final situation in which Google/Youtube updated their TOS and Audioshield is now operating "illegally." I seriously doubt it is the final I can see no reason as to why the developer would not disclose such a reason as the removal of the feature.
Either way he added the feature, advertised that feature and many would not have bought the game without the feature present. Now that feature is gone with little communication as to why it is gone and if it is expected to come back. That is unacceptable in the event it is the first two situations.
It is completely anti-consumer in every right. If you cannot see that then you are straight blind to logic.
Anyway... you can still play locally, and there are enough ways to get good tracks *legally*.
I wouldn#t say so much I'm blind to logic and more that I try not to be a dychotomic moron who can only see white and blacks.
Source pls.
1. Dychotomic isn't a word.
2. Dichotomy is not an apt description of my argument.
2. If Google/Youtube updated their eula and thus compromised the legality of AudioShield then why doesn't the developer simply state that? No one would blame him in such an event. The silence in this instance says more than words.
On a similar matter, if you bought Star Trek Bridge Crew you might want to refund ir right away, as, from the way they put it on the forums, the IBM Watson integration might eventually disappear ... and that too, is an integral part of the game.
But it essentially would, as it's the seemingly unnecessary removal of a vital, advertised feature in that case. If the dev doesn't disclose why it's removed after being an advertised feature that is the main reason some people play the game, its absolutely within a person's right to feel as if the game's been ruined.
I'd argue that Watson being added is completely different to Youtube support.
First off, You can play the entirity of ST:BC in the same regards without Watson without spending money. You cannot play, for instance, "The Black Keys - Tighten Up" in Audioshield without paying money (unless you support piracy, of course) if Youtube integration doesnt exist. There's a difference between the two that you aren't seeing, and comparing them isnt valid.
Secondly, not many people Bought ST:BC for watson support. It was an addon by Ubisoft and tbf, I, personally, never even used it.
I'd also like to advise you that your argument of "It's youtube with a C&D + NDA" is as baseless as "The Developer took it out on his own." Calling people out on a baseless claim while backing it up with a claim equally as baseless is silly.
I'm fully aware that it *could* be the Google Situation, but we must also understand that it *could* be the Developer's choice.
Finally, I'd like to say that the amount of time that's passed has surely been enough for an update. It's been over a week. Not saying a solution is past due, but communication on that new system is.